Oh boy. Where to begin.... at the beginning of course! (thank you sound of music!)
Your interpretation is indeed correct (if you attack at +1 for example, you are held at your ID after returning from the attack for 1 tick)
And I assume, for +2 you're held at your place for 2 ticks. This is downright ****ing insane. Let's just start with that for an instance. This would make people in the rank 1 alliance stop attacking ANYONE until they reached 40% and simply make them a target. All you're doing is raising the level at which people will be bashed. I understand what you're saying about making this change for more than just the top rank, but you have to understand that the top ranked players are also important, and while they are not more important than the remainder of the playerbase, it's important to cater to everyone, not just the "downtrodden". There are high ranked solos as well that would suffer from such a thing, in fact solos at all ranks would suffer from this. Anyone who ever attacks at a modded eta would suffer extremely badly. You are GUARANTEEING a way to kill a target. It's just nonsense. It ruins the flow of gameplay.
However, bounty does not dissuade anybody but alliances that aren't rank 1 from attacking below 40%. I would rather add a true cost to attacking below 30%, than simply ruling it out altogether, or leaving as it is (when negative honour is genuinely unescapable and nothing close enough to a punishment as a rank 1 player unless you enjoy spending your time dead and low-score).
While bounty is certainly not the most effective deterrent, your "real cost" you're adding will for sure be a bad thing. As i've stated in other threads, making a guaranteed way to kill people (i.e. a big red win button) is epic quantities of fail and should not ever be implemented. There are definite circumstances where it's utterly unavoidable to hit low targets. I try to avoid it, and i think most people are the same, but just because i want to hit a lower target, doesn't mean I should be punished for it. If you want people to not be able to attack below 40%, then make the minimum attack range 40%. There is no fair deterrent to prevent people from hitting at the minimum range. You will always have, you had it when it was 15%, you have it now at 30%, and you would also have it at 40%.
You make the claim that you would prefer to attach a real cost to an attack below 40% rather than remove it entirely, but that's bollocks. Your suggestion makes it irrelevant as to the possibility, if I knew that my troops would be locked at home after an eta 7 attack for two whole ticks, then I would never ever attack at modded etas. So if you're going to make it fundamentally a suicide mission to attack at modded etas, then you may as well just abandon the option to even attack at that range.
As a person who is usually lingering in the top two alliances, I would welcome a way that would give me a concrete reason to keep logging in, and watching the overview - It gives me something to do after victory, rather than organising mindless trains on targets in alliances that are ultimately very much demoralised by it after a certain time.
You wouldn't have a damn thing to watch in the top ranked alliances, because no one would bother attacking at modded etas. Rank 1 alliance would sit dead in the water, and do NOTHING. Which would prompt either seedwhoring, or mass restarts, neither of which is fun. It is already boring enough at rank 1 that I see no reason to punish those who win, and make it even more crappy to win. You claim that you want to make the game more fun and want a way to make rank 1 want to keep logging in, but this method is just foolish, and will in fact have a counter effect to that which you want. It would make the rank 1 (maybe 2) alliances stagnant, they wouldn't attack at modded etas, instead they would bash more targets with more players on a tick at 40%. You can't fix this problem with "negative" solutions. You have to make it more profitable to attack positively, than to attack negatively. Negative restrictions simply don't work (bounty is proof). Yes, there is a problem with "mindless bashes" but your suggestion would merely increase the problem since people would BASH more at 40%, or stop attacking at all, which is boring.
We often talk about bringing back competitiveness, well this is one way of doing it. It's not bulletproof - Your alliance would still be able to defend you as normal, but it adds a way of making late-round pseudo-resistance attacks that can make a dent if planned and timed well. The rank 1 alliance becomes inpenetrable in modern-day Bush once they are 3x rank 2's score. For example, nobody this round has a hope of successfully resisting now unless there is a split. My idea would give a glimmer of hope for a successful resistance.
Again, more thoughtless nonsense. This is one way of thoroughly ruining the game, and has nothing to do with bringing more competitiveness to the game. You forget that in combination with adrenaline rushes, and this "enforced house arrest" will result in the possibility of nigh on undefendable kills on players who are simply unable to defend themselves. That's ridiculously unfair. I know your gripe is about the rank 1 ally, and while I see where you're coming from, you're still wrong. Punishing rank 1 is never a good way to go. If you want to encourage a resistance type activity, then you need to add positive rewards to the success (or even attempt) of a resistance; not punishments to those who worked hard for, and deserved the win. The reward for rank 1 alliances these days is that you can win in a week, or two, and then you are free to go on about living your life as you see fit. This is, as I see it, the true reward to winning.
Also, I feel that resistance victories should be earned, not given. You're talking about making it so damned easy for a resistance to win. I don't think that's fair either, if you can't beat rank 1 fair and square, then you don't deserve rank 1. You shouldn't be given the rank 1 place, or the ability to kill them easily just because you lost. That's absurd. Illogical Logic at it's finest. (thank you BW).
Again, this is about adding true risk to modifier attacks, not forbidding it, and not keeping it as it is (an extra few minutes of waiting). Think about it from that point of view, rather than it being a 'downside to winning'. This would apply to everyone.
No, this is about making the game easier for everyone but the rank 1 ally. And going out of your way to punish the rank 1 ally for their fairly earned victory. There have to be positive incentives to attack honourably, in combination with negative results from attacking dishonourably. But everytime this discussion comes up, it is worth noting that occasionally it is impossible to attack honourably. Not just for rank 1. Think Puppet players. Is it fair that Puppet players get a bounty for playing how they
have to play? Would it be fair to have a puppet player get killed and lose all their hard work towards garnering the troop gathering achievement, just because they could not possibly send out after sending an attack? No. This seems unjustifiably harsh on everyone. There are valid reasons for attacking sub 40%.
i know it would apply to everyone, that's part of the reason why I think you haven't fully thought this through. LOCKING players troops at home and forcing them to be easily killed is just an absurd fantasy you're entertaining. That really is akin to giving everyone a big red win button. It would also totally **** the balance beyond belief of all the routes. Those low eta routes (read: harriers) would absolutely dominate. Bounty gains would be ****ed beyond belief too, people hitting at modded etas, are likely to have huge bounties and if you lock them home, you're just feeding them to bounty hunters. Which is wrong; and unbelievably selfish.
EDIT: Also, I understand that this idea at the playerbase size we have now is downright silly. I know everybody is pushed for targets (though I still haven't hit below 45% all round thus far), but it would definitely be something worth keeping in mind for maybe 3-4 rounds time if successful advertising is implemented.
Only thing you've said worth applauding here so far. It is a truly ridiculous notion for a playerbase this size, and while I suspect it would still be a ridiculously disastrous notion for any size of playerbase, at least you're capable of seeing some of the flaws. Everybody is pushed for targets, as you say, and while having more players would certainly mitigate the issue, it would also increase the number of bounty hunters etc which could capitalize on the bounties of high ranked modded eta attackers. Also an increase in players means a higher percentage of people involved in a resistance, and consequently means a better chance of beating rank 1 in a successful resistance.
As I've stated elsewhere, most of the problems the game is experiencing now is a result of a teeny, tiny active playerbase. You expand the playerbase, many of the issues will fade into the background. I would expand the playerbase first, and then see if it's necessary to alter the game mechanics as drastically as you wish.
This is a terrible idea, and fundamentally misguided, ill thought out and just plain wrong. Positive incentives > punishments.
